The Tasmanian hospital fiasco

For political reasons, it is unlikely that Burnie specialist services will be trashed. It is more likely that two hospitals will be allowed to struggle for existence, providing second class medical care as in the past - thus ensuring the continuation of adverse events (and the unnecessary deaths of Tasmanians).

The federal intervention has also been disturbing because of the significant amount of misinformation generated. For instance, both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health have implied that the Mersey Hospital services a population of 70,000. This is untrue. As documented in my report, which was sent to Minister Abbott in 2004, the catchment area is 42-43,000. Northwest Tasmania has a total population of about 105,000, leaving Burnie with a catchment population of 62,000. With much greater capacity already, it is the obvious location for a single Centre of Excellence.

Both the Prime Minister and the Health Minister have clearly indicated that residents of Devonport will have an inadequate service, using words which allowed some to believe that the Mersey Hospital would be closed. But the state plans were to add aged services, renal dialysis, rehabilitation, a 24-hour emergency centre and high speed ambulance services to nearby Burnie. Many small population areas in Australia have a far inferior service.

The asserted lack of consultation with the Devonport population is untrue. My review twice held public consultations in Devonport and provided its proposals to the public. In the second review of services, carried out by Heather Wellington, very extensive consultations were carried out.

The Mersey-Burnie dispute has been ongoing for as long as Tasmania has attempted to plan its services. It has not been resolved because of a lack of political will. After three and a half years of planning, including two enquiries and exhaustive consultations the Tasmanian State Government finally “bit the bullet” and announced its plans for rationalisation. They have been immediately overthrown.

Tasmanians will live in the shadow of this action for a long time. Comprehensive planning and political courage do not coincide in the health sector very often.

The governance structure announced for the Mersey Hospital could not set a more damaging precedent. The announced partnership between the Commonwealth and the hospital makes the Mersey immune to the effects of future State planning. Tasmania will have to plan its medical workforce, spending, emergency services, bed supply, primary health care around whatever the Mersey chooses to do. Unnecessary technology in the Mersey will breed discontent and pressure elsewhere.

According to the Prime Minister these fortified bunker hospitals may spring up across Australia adding to the funding and service confusion which currently characterises Australia’s Health Non-System. Two standards of public hospital will emerge - Commonwealth and State - each seeking to demonstrate their superiority at the time of the relevant election and forcing the other constituency into competitive spending. The explosive costs of a US-style hospital technology race is a likely outcome.

We can only hope that the Mersey intervention will be a one-off, random and erratic mistake.

This is more than a political question. It is a moral issue. As a result of Federal Government duplicity and the public’s gullibility, Tasmanians are likely to die.